2 Hamilton councillors apologize after integrity commissioner finds they breached code of conduct

Two Hamilton city councillors have apologized after the city’s integrity commissioner found they violated the code of conduct.

Commissioner David Boghosian found Cameron Kroetsch, (Ward 2), breached decorum rules and Nrinder Nann, (Ward 3), disclosed confidential information.

Ontario municipalities must employ integrity commissioners under Ontario’s Municipal Act. Commissioners apply local rules and codes of conduct to councillors and the members of some local boards, such as health and police. They also enforce certain conflict-of-interest rules and provide legal advice to councillors and board members. 

Reports on Boghosian’s findings, dated December 2025, were included on Wednesday’s city council agenda, but not discussed during the meeting. Written responses from both councillors were also included. 

Complaint against Kroetsch

Commissioners accept complaints and can conduct investigations into them. Boghosian wrote he received the complaint about Facebook posts by Kroetsch on June 19 from someone who “wishes to remain anonymous.”

In his 33-page report, the commissioner said Kroetsch responded to a discussion in a North-End community group about a queer softball league he played in. According to screenshots in the report, Kroetsch said participant Kelly Oucharek — who has been active in local politics —  had questioned his family status at a 2023 public meeting. He said such questioning had historically been used to demean people who identify as queer, and wrote Oucharek had “consistently spread misinformation” about him. 

Boghosian said he researched that public meeting and interviewed Kroetsch and the complainant.

The councillor responded, sharing his account of the meeting, and of times he said Oucharek shared misinformation about him. 

The commissioner said he believed Kroetsch breached decorum, which he defined as “behavior that is socially correct, calm, and polite.”

“[Coun.] Kroetsch’s impugned comments were made in circumstances where he had no factual basis for making such an insinuation,” Boghosian said. “I say this because, in my opinion, there is nothing necessarily homophobic in asking a politician whether they have children and suggesting that their views on certain matters might be different if they did have children.”

The commissioner also said Kroetsch breached the code of conduct by communicating in a way that focused on personalities rather than issues. 

Given “conflicting evidence” about the 2023 meeting, Boghosian said he accepted Kroetsch had a “subjective belief” that Oucharek had questioned him in a derogatory way. Still, he reprimanded the councillor and directed him to apologize.

“In fulfillment of that direction, I apologize to Ms. Oucharek for making personal comments about her in a public Facebook post and for insinuating that she made homophobic comments in that post,” Kroetsch wrote in his response.

Complaint against Nann

The complaint against Nann was from Nov. 6, the commissioner said. He did not name the complainant, who alleged Nann disclosed information about properties in Ward 3 that came up during a confidential October council meeting about redevelopment.

The complaint was that Nann posted a newsletter update that included the specific addresses of King Street E., properties and a reference to a motion she said she moved in an in-camera session, therefore publicly linking the confidential meeting and those addresses.

The complainant questioned whether she did so deliberately for “personal gain.”

Nann responded to Boghosian, he said in his report, telling the commissioner the newsletter contained an outdated draft version published without her “usual review of the content.” She said she ought to have reviewed the newsletter with extra scrutiny.

The commissioner said he accepted the newsletter was published in error but said it still allowed members of the public to identify, or appear to identify, the properties in question — as evidenced by reporting to that effect in The Public Record.

“Nann had a personal obligation in the circumstances to ensure that the content of the Newsletter was accurate and did not disclose confidential information, or appear to be doing so,” Bhogosian said, finding she did violate the code of conduct on confidentiality. 

He did not find Nann did so for personal gain and formally reprimanded her.

“I agree with the Integrity Commissioner that any breach of confidence, even inadvertent ones, must be treated seriously,” Nann responded. “I sincerely regret this mistake occurred and any harm it may have caused.”

She added: “This will not happen again.”